Effective January 1, 2018 Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. has merged into, and will now practice law as Houston Harbaugh, P.C. Visit Houston Harbaugh here and learn more about all the ways we can serve you.

Insurance Company to Reimburse Insured for Redesign Costs Where Policy Fails to Define Land Use Ordinance and Environmental Regulation But Not Where Policy Expressly Excluded Costs Relating to Sinkholes

In High Assocs. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150711, Civil Action No. 12-5804 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2013) (J. Schmehl), the court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their claim for reimbursement of redesign costs of stormwater management basins, finding that the insurance policy at issue failed to define key terms and was thus ambiguous. However, the court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Zurich American Insurance Company, relating to the costs of filling sinkholes as the court found the policy language clear and unambiguous in excluding those costs.

Following a substantial rainfall which caused sinkholes and damage to stormwater basins, Plaintiffs, as owners and developers of a large shopping center, had to stabilize and repair the basins and fill the sinkholes. Plaintiffs were forced to redesign the basins as state, county and municipal authorities refused to allow Plaintiffs to repair the basins in the same manner that they were previously constructed. Plaintiffs reported the loss to Zurich who had issued a Commercial Inland Marine policy. Zurich reimbursed Plaintiffs for the cost of rebuilding the basins as originally designed. Zurich, however, refused to reimburse Plaintiffs for the costs associated with the redesign and construction of the stormwater basins to conform to state and local regulations as well as for the costs associated with filling the sinkholes.

With respect to the redesign of the stormwater basins, the court evaluated whether the East Lampeter Township Storm Water Management Ordinance ("Township SWMO") was a "land use ordinance," an "environmental regulation" or both. The Zurich policy's supplemental coverage provided that Zurich would cover the increased cost to repair a covered building or structure "as a result of the enforcement of a...land use ordinance, law or decree" which is "in force at the time when a covered peril occurs to a covered building or structure." Zurich denied coverage based on the policy exclusion that stated there is no coverage for "the costs associated with the enforcement of any ordinance, law or decree that...requires 'you' or anyone else to install process improvements or process modifications to property, when either is required or performed to comply with...EPA, or other similar environmental regulations." The Township SWMO was enacted pursuant to the Pennsylvania Storm Water Management Act, 32 P.S. § 680.1 et seq. ("PA SWMO"). The court determined that the Township SWMO was a land use regulation because it served to limit and control how property owners can use their property within the township. The PA SWMO, on the other hand, was an environmental ordinance because it contemplated the protection and preservation of the environment and the natural resources of Pennsylvania. As a result, the court found that the Township SWMO, which was a land use ordinance authorized by an environmental regulation, was in fact both a land use ordinance and an environmental regulation. Zurich failed to define "land use regulation" or "environmental ordinance" in the policy and failed to describe the differences between the two. The policy also failed to expressly exclude coverage where increased costs of design and construction were due to both land use and environmental regulations. As a result, the policy was ambiguous such that Plaintiffs could reasonably expect coverage for the increased costs to redesign the stormwater basins.

However, the court determined that the Zurich policy clearly excluded the costs relating to filling the sinkholes. The policy contained an earth movement exclusion which stated that Zurich would not pay for "loss caused by any 'earth movement' (other than 'sinkhole collapse') or caused by eruption, explosion, or effusion of a volcano." The definition of "sinkhole collapse" specifically stated that it "does not include the...cost of filling the sinkholes." Therefore, the policy expressly excepted sinkhole collapse from the exclusion but then excluded the cost of filling the sinkholes from the definition. The court held that this language was clear and unambiguous. Thus, Plaintiffs were not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of filling in the sinkholes.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath's article "The New Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016" was published in the 2016 Fall/Winter edition of USLAW Magazine.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath's ed a CLE on the New Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 for the Western Pennsylvania chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel

Firm shareholder Alan Miller was named as the 2017 Best Lawyer Environmental Litigator of the Year and also was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Insurance Coverage.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Intellectual Property Litigation; firm shareholder Anthony Picadio was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Business Litigation; firm associate Brandon McCullough was named a 2016 Super Lawyer Rising Star in Insurance Coverage.

On May 25, 2016, Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski presented "Voir Dire and Jury Selection" with Honorable Ronald Folina, at the Crowne Plaza Pittsburgh, as part of the National Business Institute's Continuing Education Programs.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath and firm associate led and presented at a 2-hour CLE on "Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA): The New Federal Private Cause of Action for Trade Secret Misappropriation."

Firm shareholder Kelly Williams spoke at the USLAW Business to Business Litigation Exchange in San Francisco on Prosecuting and Defending Business Defamation and Commercial Disparagement Claims by or Against Competitors Including Social Media Issues.

Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski spoke on "Wacky Pennsylvania Construction Laws" at the U.S. Law Network Spring Conference in Rancho Palos Verdes California, which took place on April 7-9, 2016.

Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski was selected to serve a two year term as Education Coordinator for the Construction Law Section of the U.S. Law Network.

Firm shareholder Bridget Gillespie and firm associate Brandon McCullough served as Regional Editors and Co-Authors of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the DRI Duty to Defend Compendium which was published in February 2016.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is for educational and informative purposes. Neither it nor the website is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. It is not to be taken as legal advice on which you should rely, and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. If you require legal advice, we recommend that you contact a licensed attorney who can provide advice based on your specific factual circumstances, the jurisdiction you are in, and the appropriate law for your situation. Please do not send us confidential information unless we have specifically requested that you do so. To the extent that any prior firm results are discussed, there is no guarantee that such results will be obtained in the future. Finally, other than the PSMN® website, we have no control over the sites that we link to, so we make no representations about the content or quality of these external sites.

Office Location And Contact Information

Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C., is a Pittsburgh law firm that serves clients primarily in Pennsylvania, but also in other jurisdictions on a special admission basis.